5 ms·

At this point I'm absolutely convinced that anything bad for adtech is good for society. Absolute profit driven evil. An entire industry built around psycholog

At this point I'm absolutely convinced that anything bad for adtech is good for society. Absolute profit driven evil. An entire industry built around psychological manipulation for the sole purpose of convincing people to consume products that they likely don't need, while simulataneously setting the stage for an Orweillian surveillance state... No one with a conscience should be working in adtech. And there are far more insidious consequences to adware. I'm just speculating, but I have a feeling that when non-technical society is bombarded by ads, its capacity for critical analysis of information is reduced. Given the ubiquity of ads, and the many decisions that humans must make personally and professionally every day, if this is true it has a seriously negative ripple effect which permeates much of human endeavor.

Nasrudith 7y ago
I am certainly no fan of current advertising - it is fundamentally backwards from what is useful - the customer wants information on what would fufill their needs and desires and should shape the provider. Beyond sinple "this exists" advertising tries to shape their desire to the product. Unfortunately there isn't exactly even a good theory for a better information propagation mechanism for resource allocation let alone one in practice. I wouldn't go so far to go zero sum with ad tech vs society. To be a smartass bathing the worls in nuclear fire would be bad for adtech and bad for society. Not to mention society is horrifyingly vague and exploitable. You can call the downfall of the Kim Jonh dynasty, the military, and the rise of a free and democratic North Korea/unified Korea the a destruction of a society. Personally I suspect that critical analysis by default isn't used period and the issues of influencers far predate ad tech. One bit of accidental good they can engage in is building skepticism - a cure all claim is greeted with more incredulity today than in the old west.
- petra 7y ago
  Sure, there isn't a good theory for information propagation. Everything we have is flawed. But advertising is, at it's core, based on lies and highly optimized manipulation. It's not hard to offer something better. The internet, with all the fake news, and the SEO's is still somewhat better, in my opinion. And if we aim higher, compare that to something like the WireCutter reviews - which tries(afaik) to offer an in-depth, unbiased reviews, and is backed by the reputation of the NY times.
friendlybus 7y ago
Who defines what people need? Buying a can of soda is not something people need when water is so cheap. Buying that soda (as a collective effort) keeps thousands of people employed, and keeps their families growing. Society relies on advertising. The Orwellian state has been growing for decades. Adtech is no unique villain in this story. Adtech has been used to sell copies of 1984 and A Brave New World. Something people arguably don't need to survive, and enjoy reading anyway. Bill Hicks had a great bit on advertisers. I think the argument for adtech's potential for evil can be better articulated. After all, ublock origin, adblocking tech has millions of users. How effective could the brainwashing be if people are choosing to leave it?
- bad_user 7y ago
  Soda on the other hand can be easily overconsumed and delivers empty calories that aren't balanced at the next meal. Soda is in the group of foods, usually ultra-processed, that are responsible for the obesity epidemic. And it's being advertised to children mostly, who don't have much self control, with obesity and diabetes rates in children climbing year after year. Don't get me wrong, I don't think soda is toxic or evil or that it should be taxed or banned. But in the context of a worldwide obesity trend, I would ban the commercials for it, or at least the ones targeting children. I understand that buying soda keeps people employed. But it's also the perfect example of what's wrong in the current society. Maybe we can find more worthwhile pursuits than selling sugared water.
- allovernow 7y ago
  >How effective could the brainwashing be if people are choosing to leave it? I think you're overestimating the average user's technical knowledge. The vast majority of people probably don't even know browsers have plugins.
  - friendlybus 7y ago
    I'm aware of that. I'm pushing the argument to the edge to show that ads are likely not as effective in reducing intellect as parent describes. Technical knowledge is not a panacea against the psychological effects of being advertised to, it only allows a user to turn them off. People fully soaked in advertising choose to leave the ad world.
taurath 7y ago
If it were driving new novel great “free” services that’d be one thing, as it did with maps gmail and search, but now that it’s reached maturity and there aren’t as many low hanging fruit its all gone to consolidation and anti customer incentives.
drdeadringer 7y ago
If only I had a pair of glasses which let me see the real world of subliminal, consumer-driving messaging a la "They Live".

Nasrudith 7y ago

I am certainly no fan of current advertising - it is fundamentally backwards from what is useful - the customer wants information on what would fufill their needs and desires and should shape the provider. Beyond sinple "this exists" advertising tries to shape their desire to the product. Unfortunately there isn't exactly even a good theory for a better information propagation mechanism for resource allocation let alone one in practice. I wouldn't go so far to go zero sum with ad tech vs society. To be a smartass bathing the worls in nuclear fire would be bad for adtech and bad for society. Not to mention society is horrifyingly vague and exploitable. You can call the downfall of the Kim Jonh dynasty, the military, and the rise of a free and democratic North Korea/unified Korea the a destruction of a society. Personally I suspect that critical analysis by default isn't used period and the issues of influencers far predate ad tech. One bit of accidental good they can engage in is building skepticism - a cure all claim is greeted with more incredulity today than in the old west.

petra 7y ago
Sure, there isn't a good theory for information propagation. Everything we have is flawed. But advertising is, at it's core, based on lies and highly optimized manipulation. It's not hard to offer something better. The internet, with all the fake news, and the SEO's is still somewhat better, in my opinion. And if we aim higher, compare that to something like the WireCutter reviews - which tries(afaik) to offer an in-depth, unbiased reviews, and is backed by the reputation of the NY times.

friendlybus 7y ago

Who defines what people need? Buying a can of soda is not something people need when water is so cheap. Buying that soda (as a collective effort) keeps thousands of people employed, and keeps their families growing. Society relies on advertising. The Orwellian state has been growing for decades. Adtech is no unique villain in this story. Adtech has been used to sell copies of 1984 and A Brave New World. Something people arguably don't need to survive, and enjoy reading anyway. Bill Hicks had a great bit on advertisers. I think the argument for adtech's potential for evil can be better articulated. After all, ublock origin, adblocking tech has millions of users. How effective could the brainwashing be if people are choosing to leave it?

bad_user 7y ago
Soda on the other hand can be easily overconsumed and delivers empty calories that aren't balanced at the next meal. Soda is in the group of foods, usually ultra-processed, that are responsible for the obesity epidemic. And it's being advertised to children mostly, who don't have much self control, with obesity and diabetes rates in children climbing year after year. Don't get me wrong, I don't think soda is toxic or evil or that it should be taxed or banned. But in the context of a worldwide obesity trend, I would ban the commercials for it, or at least the ones targeting children. I understand that buying soda keeps people employed. But it's also the perfect example of what's wrong in the current society. Maybe we can find more worthwhile pursuits than selling sugared water.
allovernow 7y ago
>How effective could the brainwashing be if people are choosing to leave it? I think you're overestimating the average user's technical knowledge. The vast majority of people probably don't even know browsers have plugins.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  I'm aware of that. I'm pushing the argument to the edge to show that ads are likely not as effective in reducing intellect as parent describes. Technical knowledge is not a panacea against the psychological effects of being advertised to, it only allows a user to turn them off. People fully soaked in advertising choose to leave the ad world.

taurath 7y ago

If it were driving new novel great “free” services that’d be one thing, as it did with maps gmail and search, but now that it’s reached maturity and there aren’t as many low hanging fruit its all gone to consolidation and anti customer incentives.

drdeadringer 7y ago

If only I had a pair of glasses which let me see the real world of subliminal, consumer-driving messaging a la "They Live".